> That's one way to make NYC even less affordable and friendly to tourists on a budget.
But that is a valid concern I suppose -- does NYC benefit from tourists on a budget? If it doesn't then it might make sense to keep them out so tourists "not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money.
I can see how tourists on a budget would not be welcome in many cities. Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense.
Any tourists will bring tax revenues into the city by eating at restaurants, visiting museums and events and generally purchasing goods and services.
"not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money.
If any place in the world operated purely under this assumption, then you would never have urban centers like New York to begin with. Consider that if the demand for hotels was so high that there was no longer enough rooms for tourists that more hotels would be built.
Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense.
It really makes sense for hotel firms, who are likely the ones behind the vast lobbying efforts that helped to implement this law in the first place. They are the ones who stand to garner the extra revenues to be had from tourists who no longer have the option to AirBnB and must instead pay for high priced hotels.
The only way in which this should improve New York's revenues as a government entity is through the room taxes assessed on hotels as opposed to AirBnB-style operations.
This problem, however, could have been remedied without outright outlawing of the practice which seems to infringe on the rights of many property owners who AirBnB in a reasonable fashion (i.e. not purpose built illegal hotels).
Museums and other public services are subsidized with taxes on on hotels. It could easily be a net loss for the city for people to use short term housing vs fewer people using hotels.
This is possible, however, if it were the case the law would be formulated differently to ban all short term visitors who don't pay for a hotel. For the past three years I have stayed in the city for many visits for free with friend - no hotel taxes.
Clearly this practice and "couchsurfing" would have to be banned as well if it was purely to recoup these taxes.
If short term visitors outside of the scope of taxation (i.e. me) were putting a strain on the system because of insufficient collection of hotel taxes, then the city has a number of possible outlets. In Europe, for example, many EU citizens of certain age classes pay far less than non-EU tourists for museums - the same could be done with NY residents vs. non-resident.
This is really to say that if there was an issue, visitors should pay for their costs directly rather than obtusely. If in the process of using a short term rental they consume well above and beyond what the property owner would normally consumer on their own (power, water, gas, services), then the property owner should see a rise in costs and pass these costs back onto renters.
You could spend $100+ on a hotel for the night, or spend around $30 or less on a temp place. The money you save CAN be used for touristy things. That's $70 a day that can thrown somewhere else besides for shelter. They could be out partying, trying out food places, buying things, etc. This is just the savings from not staying at a hotel..
A tourist who stays at a hotel ($100/night) might only have budgeted $50/day to spend outside of hotel costs.
A cheap tourist could budget $100/day, stay at a temp place and still get more out of NYC than someone who budgeted $150/day and stayed at a hotel.
But that is a valid concern I suppose -- does NYC benefit from tourists on a budget? If it doesn't then it might make sense to keep them out so tourists "not on a budget" can have more space, visit more often, and consequently spend more money.
I can see how tourists on a budget would not be welcome in many cities. Some places rely on selling overpriced services and items to tourists and rely on tourists coming in and just throwing money around. So making legislation to accommodate certain visitors, but discourage others, kind of makes sense.